The Stat Lab

I found this interesting. This is the offensive and defensive top 3 and bottom 3 2012 Advanced Statistical Plus/Minus Value over Replacement Player.

Offense

Top 3:

8.21
6.19
5.78

Bottom 3:

-8.14
-7.01
-6.23

Defense

Top 3:

-3.85
-3.44
-3.37

Bottom 3:

3.55
3.22
2.83

The difference in impact between the best and the worst offensive player is a staggering 16.35 points while the difference between the best and the worst defensive player is 7.4. I have always believed that offensive superstars have a bigger impact than defensive but I didn't think the difference was this large. Looks like defense isn't half of the game, it's only a third!

Defenders can be avoided if there are weak links on the team. Offensive players like Lebron and Kobe cannot be avoided because there is only one basketball and they have it.

Maybe that has something to do with the lack of symmetry. I'm not sure that I can fully grasp that stat though. Would have to really think about it.

Click to expand...

The stat is just regular +/- with a tweak. They have used regression to adjust for who the players play with and against to remove the context dependence of raw +/-. The VORP part doesn't matter since I'm looking at the difference between the worst and the best players.

The stat is just regular +/- with a tweak. They have used regression to adjust for who the players play with and against to remove the context dependence of raw +/-. The VORP part doesn't matter since I'm looking at the difference between the worst and the best players.

Click to expand...

I get the adj +/-, but I'm trying to think of all the potential biases of the VORP difference. There are a lot of things imbedded in there and it is difficult to know exactly what it is telling you.

For instance, replacement level- "replacement level estimates numerically the performance of players who can be acquired at little or no cost to the team. This generally means either players signed as free agents during the season or those who make teams as training-camp invitees."

Maybe defensive abilities are not as highly recognized in the NBA and those replacement level guys are actually pretty good defenders and tend to be more offensively challenged? For instance, maybe there are a ton of Damien Wilkins, Darvin Ham, young Ben Wallace types of guys who flow into that replacement level player pool. I'm not saying this is the case, just that it's the kind of thing you'd want to figure out before believing in the VORP difference. I'm open to the possibility that the opposite is true and it's a bunch of Alex Acker, Will Bynum types who can fill it up, but at a huge cost to the defense. It's a complex stat.

Those links were really interesting to read through, but there are a ton of variables going on. I just need to read through it all thoroughly before I'll feel like I understand what is imbedded.

What is "offensive adjusted +/-" exactly? Is it essentially offensive rating on court minute offensive rating of the replacement player on court? If that is the case, then it doesn't seem like it is a +/-. Doesn't adj +/- take into account offense and defense combined while on and off the court?

It seems like they are able to do it- when I filtered for Detroit only, it seemed to position our players pretty accurately on the spectrum, but I just don't understand how the calculation worked.

I read quite a lot of APBRmetrics last year and noticed the guy (DSMok/DanielM) writing the blog is one of the most respected guys in the "APBRmetrics scene" and his speciality is plus/minus. I really enjoy his stuff too since I'm more of a +/- kind of guy than a box score kind of guy. I think he got hired by some NBA team because of his writings.

It was a while ago I read about his plus/minus so I don't remember in detail but his adjusted +/- takes into account offense and defense combined and then he just divides it by how much the offensive and defensive rating is affected when the player is on and off the floor.

Finally, the team totals for the season. Wins Produced says that Monroe, Jerebko, Stuckey, and Wallace are driving this team's success. No one would dispute Monroe and Stuckey, but Jerebko and Wallace might raise a few eyebrows (or ideally, one single eyebrow, if you know what I mean).
But most surprisingly for many is that Wins Produced suggests that Brandon Knight is actively losing games for the Pistons, not winning them. Undoubtedly, some will write off Wins Produced off hand because of this. That's fine.

Great article. I have no doubt that Knight is doing more harm than good out there this year, but I'm not overly concerned about that. His flashes of brilliance warrant giving him a full 2+ year development stint on the court. You don't want to give up on a PG or a C too soon, that is for sure.

Also very cool how they show the trends for the per minute efficiency. It's hard to argue with win shares.

A guy like Wilkins might get shafted a little if he is in more often on defense and is asked to guard better players, but that effect is probably very tiny.

Ben Wallace has been effective for sure. It's just really evident that he defends with his brain when you watch him this year. No falling for pump fakes, great hand action, perfect help defense, good positioning, and still a rebounding force.

It just goes to show you how special of a player Big Ben really is. At his age and given his offensive limitations, he has no business being one of the top players in win shares, or showing improvement as the season wears on. But man, oh man, stats don't lie. I feel fortunate that I was there to watch his career.

Ben Wallace has been effective for sure. It's just really evident that he defends with his brain when you watch him this year. No falling for pump fakes, great hand action, perfect help defense, good positioning, and still a rebounding force.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm assuming he got plenty of practice during scrimmages with Tay over the years.

My favorite quote from that article: "What the Wins Produced numbers won't tell you is that Damien leads the league in shot fakes per minute." I don't know if it's true (I'm notoriously bad at picking up on subtle sarcasm), but I love the idea of it being true.​

And for all the bashing we do about the Pistons' frontcourt, those four guys (Moose, Viking, MaxSlam, and O.B.W.) are four of the top 5 Pistons in win shares, and the one that was sent down to the D-league (Mack-Baby) actually leads the team in WP48.

What the Pistons appear to really need is a point guard. Here's hoping Knight actually turns into someone halfway decent.

I've come to the conclusion that Stuckey was the best player on the team this year. I could also make the argument for Monroe, but I just think he was close 2nd.

Data points:
- We were almost breakeven with Stuckey on the floor this year (nobody else on the team, except for the non qualifying Macklin was anywhere close).
- Without Stuckey on the floor, we felt a huge negative shock of -10 points per 100 possessions. That is about twice the shock as any other player removed.
- Stuckey had by far the higher production differential of any player on the team and held his opponent to the lowest.
- Stuckey's "simple rating" was 6.8 to Monroe's 2.3
- Stuckey's PER was 2nd only to Monroe's
- Stuckey's WS and WS/min was 2nd to Monroe
- His points per minute were #1
- His assist/ tov ratio was #1 (2nd in assist rate behind Walker Russell)
- Most free throws per game by a wide margin (11 games with double digit attempts)
- Shot .337 from deep... his highest percentage of his career by a mile
- #2 in total shooting percentage (a hair behind Monroe)
- Had the highest offensive rating on the team
- 4 games of 30+ points, including against Chicago and the Lakers
- 26 games with 1 turnover or fewer
- 50 out of 52 games with < 4 turnovers. The other 2 games were 5. Very secure with the ball... considering a lot of these per probably charges.

On a side note, both PER, Winshares, and total shooting % are all pointing to Jerebko as the 3rd best player on the team. There is likely a bias since he came off the bench mostly and was facing easier competition, but something to think about a little more.